Comments Thread For: UFC, ESPN Reach Multi-Year Deal To Stream Events on ESPN+

[sicko]

Nah Fox is about to lock in WWE. They are getting out of boxing

Yeah heard that as well

[killakali]

Yeah heard that as well

It’s pretty sad day when fake wrestling is more popular than boxing

[Scipio2009]

Bad news for UFC fans and for the UFC business in general.

1. No mention of any events on ESPN itself. So instead of being on a widely available established channel - like Fox or ESPN, like other major sports - UFC is on a streaming service that specializes in second- and third-tier games. Once again, UFC will be used to try to build an unestablished platform, like Spike - except that unlike with Spike, UFC won't be getting the prime priority placement front and center and will instead to relegated to the off-network streaming platform.

2. Sets up another pay wall between MMA fans and UFC content. Adding another pay wall risks alienating fans who are unwilling or unable to spend more money to watch UFC.

3. Perpetuates the problem of UFC oversaturation. UFC events have become generic and indistinguishable from each other. Talent pool is thin, lacking stars. And putting 15 events on ESPN+ does nothing to alleviate oversaturation and even less to build future stars.

Nothing has been confirmed, but the UFC was already rumored to be cutting their PPV count by half, and we still d on't know what the FOX (or NBC) deal looks like.

6 PPVs, 15 shows on ESPN+, 4 shows on FOX, and who knows how many shows for FS1. [With the assumed ESPN+ shows being alleged 12-bout cards, I'm having a ton of doubt about how involved FOX/FS1 will be anyway, tbh] the volume of shows may not be as heavy as you're assuming.

WME-IMG laid out something like $4b to get the UFC; if this ESPN deal is confirmed, they'd be making back $750m of that, plus 30 PPVs worth of having their content regularly pushed on a standalone 30-minute show across the ESPN channels (reading as if they are expecting an 'NFL Live' type of show on ESPN).

[BennyBlanco]

Ratings mean less & less when you are getting $4.99 per customer every month. ESPN is gonna start being more about subscribers like HBO vs a standard broadcast TV channel talking about ratings all the time.

Ratings still mean PLENTY to ESPN. It's by far the primary source of revenue, whether monetizing it by ads or affiliate fees, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

If ratings weren't important, you wouldn't see ESPN PR rushing to put out a Sunday morning press release regarding the ratings to the Saturday night boxing telecast.

[BennyBlanco]

Did you watch the fight? They produced it. The ESPN ratings have been great. Pac-Horn Loma Rigo and wait till this Saturday with Loma-Linares. Plus Magdaleno just put up solid numbers.

They are in talks to pick up Tyson Fury's next fight too.

Yes, I did watch the fight. That wasn't an ESPN production. I'll let you in on how things work in TV production.

ESPN didn't have a single camera at the fight. They didn't have any production trucks or production personnel at the fight. All ESPN did was take the Sky Sports feed - i.e., the coverage that Sky Sports filmed and produced - and insert their voices and graphics from a studio here in the U.S.

ESPN didn't control any of the replays and any other element of the production. They called the fight by viewing it on a monitor. Sky Sports produced the telecast, not ESPN.

[BennyBlanco]

Nothing has been confirmed, but the UFC was already rumored to be cutting their PPV count by half, and we still d on't know what the FOX (or NBC) deal looks like.

6 PPVs, 15 shows on ESPN+, 4 shows on FOX, and who knows how many shows for FS1. [With the assumed ESPN+ shows being alleged 12-bout cards, I'm having a ton of doubt about how involved FOX/FS1 will be anyway, tbh] the volume of shows may not be as heavy as you're assuming.

WME-IMG laid out something like $4b to get the UFC; if this ESPN deal is confirmed, they'd be making back $750m of that, plus 30 PPVs worth of having their content regularly pushed on a standalone 30-minute show across the ESPN channels (reading as if they are expecting an 'NFL Live' type of show on ESPN).

That's not how business works. The magical $750M from ESPN (which I expect will soon by debunked) has to pay fighters and event expenses before going against the outstanding debt. So, no, there won't be $750M going against the $4B purchase, and the $4B is already much more than $4B as a result of interest payments.

You can buy a 30-minute show on ESPN for less than $200,000.

[Eff Pandas]

Ratings still mean PLENTY to ESPN. It's by far the primary source of revenue, whether monetizing it by ads or affiliate fees, and that isn't going to change anytime soon.

Are people crazy or do mfers just like to make up sh^t to disagree on? Where did I say ratings won't mean nothing. I'm saying when you're into the subscriber market WITHOUT ads like this app plus HBO ratings mean a lot less.

Sure I don't doubt if nobody watches some curling show on this platform it'll be canceled, but if you have no advertising you need not be THAT concerned if 1m watched or 1.5m.

[killakali]

Yes, I did watch the fight. That wasn't an ESPN production. I'll let you in on how things work in TV production.

ESPN didn't have a single camera at the fight. They didn't have any production trucks or production personnel at the fight. All ESPN did was take the Sky Sports feed - i.e., the coverage that Sky Sports filmed and produced - and insert their voices and graphics from a studio here in the U.S.

ESPN didn't control any of the replays and any other element of the production. They called the fight by viewing it on a monitor. Sky Sports produced the telecast, not ESPN.

Your right about sky’s feed but the in studio is their Production. Same thing with the bjs Saunders fight they just picked up

[Scipio2009]

That's not how business works. The magical $750M from ESPN (which I expect will soon by debunked) has to pay fighters and event expenses before going against the outstanding debt. So, no, there won't be $750M going against the $4B purchase, and the $4B is already much more than $4B as a result of interest payments.

You can buy a 30-minute show on ESPN for less than $200,000.

Yes, there are costs related to delivering the ESPN+ cards; if it seemed as if I was arguing a direct 100% payment, that was a mistake.

Still, this ESPN+ deal puts a nice bit of coin into WME-IMG's pocket, as will the likely coming FOX/FS1 deal, as will the assumed 30 PPVs. Manage their funds however they want, paying down their debt obligations are likely far easier now than before this deal.

[BennyBlanco]

Are people crazy or do mfers just like to make up sh^t to disagree on? Where did I say ratings won't mean nothing. I'm saying when you're into the subscriber market WITHOUT ads like this app plus HBO ratings mean a lot less. Sure I don't doubt if nobody watches some curling show on this platform it'll be canceled, but if you have no advertising you need not be THAT concerned if 1m watched or 1.5m.

Demonstrably wrong. HBO tracks ratings, Netflix tracks ratings, everyone tracks ratings whether or not they are advertiser-based.

HBO and Showtime have been ad-free for 30-40 years and they still play close attention to ratings, so when are ratings going to mean less and less?

Today and forward, data matters more than ever. Ratings are data, and that's becoming more important, not less.